Re: [saxdotnet-devel] Discussion Status 2

[Jeff R. <li...@je...>]

> What I mean is that in a scenario like DCOM (or some other RPC mechanism)
> one cannot guarantee that the call reaches the target, since RPC
> mechanisms may have communication failures. You may guarantee that
> the call is made (i.e. that it originates), but not that it arrives.
> So in such a situation the callee cannot rely on the EndDocument() 
> callback.

> However, I think I mentioned that RPC is not a common SAX use case.

I agree, it is not common. I think that when we have that documentation 
around end document, if we include information about this, we need to 
explain it clearly (as you did above). Also, I think we need to be 
explicit about what happens in the case of a user generated exception in 
a callback (i.e., EndDocument is *still* called).

> A feature called reader-control has been added. It is obviously a read-only
> feature.

Excellent.

> I am not sure I understand you fully.

Well, I was imagining the case where there was a two-gig element name, 
or two-gig (count) of attributes on an element. We cannot pass the 
information back clearly... maybe a specialized exception, or something 
similar to an API FatalError would be useful at that point... so that 
the cause is clearly identified. Again, this is not something for this 
release. I just feel as though there are things that we could do to fix 
this...

> Very good indeed!

Yes quite. I also took Elliotte's advice and looked through the cvs on 
the sax.sf.net site for changes to documentation. There were no changes 
regarding for the issues we discussed (as near as I can tell) since last 
April. So we have been working with the latest documentation base...

Cheers,
Jeff